FedaykinI’m not going to answer points which have already been answered, nor am I going to feed the trouble-makers. Hope someone has something useful/interesting to add to this thread otherwise I guess it’s run its course.
So hang on, everybody who doesn’t follow your line of thinking is a trouble maker now. Who appointed you arbiter of this forum…
If you had just said that in your opinion the carriers are a waste of money in the current economic climate or the UK should pull back from its global commitments whilst I don’t agree I would of accepted them as fair arguments. What has got me and other annoyed is your line of thinking that carriers have been of no use to the UK over the last few decades and that somehow its 100% certain that we won’t find that we could need the capability in the future. Considering every defence review has shown to be wrong in the face world events I find that line of thinking to be narrow minded.
But as you say this thread has run its course.
FedaykinWell not the name I was expecting but I like the thinking of the choice. Choosing a man who served the RN and RAN is within the spirit of this sale.
FedaykinI have looked at the other option and that is reducing our nation to the national standing of Belgium.
The Royal Navy think they need a carrier like QE class, all the studies have pointed to more steel is better. Ocean is good at what it does for the money but doesn’t offer the capability that QE class does.
What dwindling role? All I see is our carriers being needed over and over again to bail us out of different problems. The number of carriers we operated during WW2 was totally artificial, we need a small number of decent carriers that give us a capability to project power globally has been shown repeatedly. That is my opinion, I suppose I am being blinkered about it but at least I see the value rather then dismiss them.
Fedaykin[I]
As I’ve said, I’m with those (including the Chair of the hearing) who cannot see any other logical conclusion that when the customer freely admits that carriers have not been needed in the past, and when the customer is willing to operate without a carrier for years to come, there is only one logical conclusion – that it isn’t needed at all and never will be.
But we have needed carriers OVER AND OVER AGAIN since WW2! How many times does this have to be typed to get through to you?! Or was the last half century a blank for you? Also the customer ie the Royal Navy is NOT WILLING OR HAPPY TO LOSE A CARRIER OVER THE NEXT DECADE! The first Sea Lord has said as much on MORE THEN ONE occasion! Sorry to shout but your so naive and blinkered on this matter that you really got on my nerves! How can you type that it will never be needed? Got a crystal ball? Going on history I would say otherwise. As for the chair of the hearing she clearly has an agenda which I have a hunch is the same as yours, in that making our country the next Belgium of Europe! Also where is your evidence that the majority of MP’s don’t want the UK to punch above its weight – I think a survey would show otherwise. I would say the same of the MOD, where is the evidence that they don’t want carriers…or is it more hot air from you. I also think you will find that the majority of this forums members have enough pride in their nation that they don’t want the scenario you tout! Anyway its academic the carriers are being built and at least one (hopefully both) will see service, many here don’t see them as an unaffordable waste of money.
FedaykinWell if an oil field saddles Falklands and Argentine waters then the Argentinians would be perfectly within their rights tapping it as well.
FedaykinOf course in reality we will have lost the opportunity to provide a much more valuable and useful influence by spending our money on a system which is wholly inappropriate for a nation of our size and influence.
OK Tim what was this system that would be better value for money, that gives us a global power projection capability better then an aircraft carrier and available off the shelf?! Come on enlighten us with your wisdom…
Then again lets look at current events, us spending millions upon millions conducting strikes off Libya with strike aircraft based in the UK and Italy when parking an aircraft carrier off the cost would of been far cheaper and as shown by the French far more responsive to the tactical situation. Hang on a minute we did send an aircraft carrier in the form of HMS Ocean and the Apaches embarked. Yes yes as you keep on pointing out this is also a war of choice, so you would of had no problem with a massacre in Libya if there hadn’t been an intervention? That would of looked good in the press…politicians would have had no problem with that.
Of course we also need to go out and tell the French, Italians, Spanish and Brazilians that their carriers were a waste of money as well. Aside from the French the others have even less influence then us but seem to disagree with your viewpoint. (I’m not including Thailand their carrier really was a waste of money). Even the Russians at the lowest ebb of their influence post fall of communism slogged on with their carrier and China wants to join the club! So were those countries all wrong then?
You keep on saying history supports your viewpoint despite being shown over and over again that this isn’t the case which leads me to the conclusion that you have a chip on your shoulder over the RN, actually you kind of remind me of Sharkey Wards blinkered attitude to the RAF. You’re clearly one of those people who likes hearing how right you are and get a bit miffed when people don’t. You are certainly allowed your blinkered opinion but thank god you have no influence over our defence procurement as you clearly want our country to be the new Belgium of Europe!
But its time to give up replying to your nonsense.
FedaykinUS aircraft attending MAKS will be B-52, P-3C Orion, A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-16C Fighting Falcon, C-130J Super Hercules, C-5 Galaxy, F-15E Strike Eagle and KC-10 Extender.
FedaykinThinking I’m talking into the wind here but you think our current defence policy should be based on a set of conclusions of the early 1970’s now shown to be wrong rather then on the FACT that we have used carriers over and over again to defend British interests or project our influence over the last forty years and longer is asinine to say the least.
Prince Charles is right we should learn from history, and as history has shown carriers to be important to our defence needs what else is there to argue?
Defence by its nature is expensive, I don’t see it as throwing good money after bad maintaining a capability that gives us global power projection. How about talking about the Army and its endless expenditure on vehicles that should be cheap off the shelf but they want to redesign and then after spending millions (even billions) never enter service. At least the carriers are real and aside from Labour government induced delays progressing very well. Spending on defence is like buying condoms, you might not need them but they are worth having as they protect you from far worse things!
You would be right if we ended up with 6 jets on two carriers that it would be tokenism but if you have done any kind of examination into the project you would well know that those six jets are just the initial capability and the plan is to build up from that point. The plan was always to build up to about 12 jets in peace time and then surge RAF airframes onto the carrier in the event of a crisis.
FedaykinThing about the 1995 deal is I don’t think we really expected anything would be found.
FedaykinIt’s very simple; If we accepted in 1970 (or thereabouts) that we didn’t need a carrier force, there’s no plausible reason to suggest that we need one now, especially when it is so small as to be pointless. The only argument in favour of a carrier is the notion of an uncertain future. As I’ve said, this is not a sound argument as it is open-ended. If we use that argument to retain a carrier, we have to use the same argument to maintain Trident and many other capabilities which the service chiefs might care to propose. Obviously, pretty-much any weapons system can be justified on the basis that we might need it.
Clearly, the reality is that the carrier is a political purchase. It has no defence significance whatsoever. This is where I came-in with this thread. The absurdity of the vast sums of money, the wriggling of the MoD and the proverbial white elephant in the room – the very obvious question which nobody could ask – what on Earth we were buying the carriers and aircraft for. Gilbert & Sullivan at its best.
Sorry Tim, but I think its absurd to define future defence needs by those of the 1970’s the fact is we have used our carriers plenty of times since CVA01 had the plugged pulled. You argue that those were wars of choice, so what! That is pretty much what all wars are even WW2 was a war of choice we could of reneged on our agreement with Poland but we didn’t. With the public and press baying for the politicians to do something those choices become rather pressing. The money is sunk now, the carriers ARE being built and they have a service potential of fifty years. I am keen to see us get our money out of them rather then whinge about how much they cost. To argue that a carrier has no defence significance whatsoever shows an extreme lack of historical knowledge and even a degree of naivety.
You know I was toying with buying your book Tim but now I have had a chance to see your narrow mindedness I think I will buy Damien Burke’s instead, probably saved myself a headache!
FedaykinAhhhh the old RAF moved Australia story or should I say myth. The accusation came up in the autobiography of Ray Lygo (later head of BAe) that Australia was moved by 200 miles. Lygo was closely involved in CVA01 planning, and it is 99% certain that the moving island/continent story originates from him and has been retold god knows how many times in a form of Chinese whispers. It should also be noted that distances of anywhere between 200 and a 1000 miles have been touted as the story is retold! People have looked for corroborating evidence, the National Archives reveal nothing to support the story.
But why spoil a good story with an inconvenient thing like lack of evidence!
The navy really didn’t help itself when it came to defending CVA01, here are some interesting thoughts on another forum about the matter which I think better explains the problems:
It is also clear from archival research undertaken by people such as Saki Dockrill that:
a) the main opposition to CVA01 actually came from the Foreign Office, who described the new carriers as ‘superfluous’ in their submissions on future policy. The Treasury was not far behind them in this point of view. The PM was not convinced about carriers either. The crabs could, in fact, have been in favour of the carriers, and there’d still have been a strong chance the CVA01 would’ve been cancelled to save money.
b) The records suggest that the question wasn’t whether to buy F-111 or the CVA-01. The options were either
(i) procuring the F-111 or
(ii)obtaining the CVA01 in addition to the F-111
There was no option of buying CVA01 in lieu of the F-111.
c) Up until 1966, the US had been averse to the cancellation of the carriers. While the US had gone as far as to offer second-hand US carriers to the UK during 1965, this had been because they wanted the UK to have a presence ‘East of Suez’. As it became clear that the UK had (at that time) no intention, or at least no declared intent, to abandon the East of Suez role, McNamara and the DoD felt that it wasn’t necessary to press the UK to buy new carriers. It wasn’t the capability that mattered to the US but the actual presence – which could be delivered (McNamara thought) through the presence of land based air and troops.
d)The RN’s staff work was poor – Healey was constantly sending submissions back to the naval staff urging them to make their case in a more convincing manner. They never did. They also managed to pull off the trick of submitting a planning option to the Overseas Defence Policy committee which, upon examination, had got its sums wrong by a cool £76,000,000. This did not exactly help the RN’s case.
The sad fact of the matter is that whether the RAF moved an island, or even a continent by 200 yards, 200 miles or 200 Light Years, if this sleight of hand occurred, it did not kill the carriers. And a former ‘Wings’ of HMS Victorious once suggested to me that the RAF might have used an old RN chart for the allegedly dodgy map…
FedaykinAt this rate the UK will ask every country in the world if they would like to participate in the Type 26 including some who don’t have navies!
FedaykinWhat is the intended role of the military KA-226?
FedaykinSpoilsport
FedaykinTo get back onto the subject on hand it was interesting to see how admiral Hussain’s hands were tied in respect of his real opinion and for that matter the Royal navies. There was a whole conversation about annual availability was interesting, he had to toe the official line about one carrier being activated the other being mothballed. The reality is the RN want PoW rotated with QE as was the original plan but have to hold their tongue post SDSR knowing they will make a case for it during the 2015 SDSR when the stupidity of not using a second deep into construction carrier becomes clear.
Sign In
